But that’s more a monitor then, not a TV I assume?
The only reason we have cheap high-resolution 4K monitors is they use the same panels as TV screens. If TV's don't move to 8K, cheap monitors also won't.
Do they? I always thought TV screens are lower pixel quality panels with colors/hdr cranked up for remote viewing and from any angle. And that the only link between them is movie standards, as in viewers >> PC users, so their demand defines the market. PC panels also tend to have low-ms response rates whereas TV panels are okay with 100ms+ range. I mean there must be a common ground for manufacturing <N>K, but aren’t they different beasts?
There's more to a display than a panel. I don't think the raw panel has latency at all; probably only a pixel transition time which defines the fastest possible response but that is far less than 100ms. The rest is up to the 'panel driving' electronics.
I don't believe there are really different panels in a 32" 4K monitor or a 32" 4K TV. (those would be the cheap low-end or 'bedroom' TV's which are sold far more than 65" flagship living room TV's)
Hmm, I didn’t even think of this aspect. Thanks!
GP claimed cheap monitors are only possible because they use the same panels as TVs. It's silly to say all 4K monitors are just TV panels with different inputs and vise versa.
Panels available today have a vast array of differences. Just check out some reviews on RTINGS. Even similar models from the same manufacturer can have wildly different specs.